Analyzation of Elizabeth Poole Sandford's "Women in Her Social and Domestic Character"

"Women in Her Social and Domestic Character" was written by Elizabeth Sandford, as Mrs. John Sandford, which (as one shall see) follows her advice of women's roles. It is 1842 in Industrial England, a time of rapid technological changes, not to mention explosive social revolutions. The writer reaches to an audience of middle class men and women, whose gender roles are still quite mixed up and ill-defined. Her intent is to clearly mark out where a woman belongs and what her temperment should be. A woman is a dependent creature, one who needs the husband, and has no place in a business environment, at least according to Mrs. Sandford... It is a reflection of the "prudish" and genteel nature that middle and upper class women are expected to have, but also includes romantic love, which is a shift from previous social requirements of upper class marriages.
To this writer, a middle-class woman's place is in the home, where she is expected to be her husband's everything, from psychiatrist to backscratcher to hostess. It seems that the influences of working class society and revolution force many middle class women to distinguish them from their "inferior" counterparts; the need for a woman to work for financial stability was only for the poorest of the poor, and was highly unacceptable because of this stigma. The Industrial Revolution by-produced such thinking, as more and more became aware of just how poor the poor really were, and Sandford is more than likely to be a product of this era's thinking. However, in today's society where everyone (regardless of sex, race, or preferences) have equal rights, many women and men would shun this notion. Although some feel that society is screwed up because of the gender-bending of rules, it is of the majority's belief that women can do as they wish. The women of the Academy, for example, would never stand for going with the grain, and not against it. To women all over the world, this enclosing of opportunities and rights is outrageous, and judgement on the poor person who even encourages this ancient notion would be extremely harsh to say the very least.

Analyzations of Alexander II's "Imperial Decree, March 3,1861" and Abraham Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation"

The author of the "Imperial Decree, March 3, 1861," is of course Alexander II of Russia. The audience is all of Russia, the wealthy, landowning aristocrats, the army, and the peasant class. The purpose is to free all the serfs, and provide some compensation for both classes involved, the landowners (who are now losing their laborers) and the serfs (who have no protection or means of living). It was a step toward reform in Russia, which after a humiliating defeat, forced them to industrialize. It was a necessary move to industrialization, as there was no established middle, working class to take up these jobs or begin these businesses.
The author of the "Emancipation Proclamation" was Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States of America. This country was engaged in a civil war that was mainly focused on the secession of southern states due to tensions on the issue of slavery. It was issued in the 3rd year of the war, in January 1st, 1863. Like the previous document, it was addressed to all the people of the nation (and not really Russians, but citizens of the Union). It's significance was that it freed all slaves in the country, but it was really intended to validate the Civil War and its causes.
The most obvious difference is that the Russian decree contained provisions for compensations to both parties, whereas the Emancipation (whose direct reason for issuance was not slavery) does not. Alexander justifies his actions by saying that the serfs are subject to inalienable rights and it is long overdue their freedoms, while Lincoln argues that the Union, once forged, cannot be divided and that states who try to secede should be forced to remain in the Union. President Lincoln sees the secessions as armed rebellions, and not legal secessions. To a certain degree, both were effective. But for the most part, Russia and the US had a great deal of problems that followed. It was hard for both countries' slaves to adjust to this new freedom, and a lot of reform and regulations had to be implemented.

Analyzation of the EMS telegraph

The original EMS telegraph was dictated by King Wilhelm I to Heinrich Abeken . The second telegraph, which was released and sent, was doctored by the Prime Minister Otto van Bismarck who received the original telegraph. It was written in Prussia in 1870. It's purpose was to inform the Prime Minister of the details of the conversation between the king and the French ambassador, while the second was to incite a war between the two countries. (It was successful.) The main idea is that Otto van Bismarck would do anything for German unification, and a war with France, would force the southern German states to unite. The southern German states, predominantly Catholic, were reluctant to go further than a few alliances with their northern, predominantly Protestant brothers. By inciting feelings of nationalism, Bismarck unified Germany and "spanked" France. He also managed to win Alsace and Lorraine, a resource rich area between northern France and Germany. He shortened the telegraph, and changed the context behind the words. By telling a briefer story missing important details, both countries seemed to be insulted, which played into his hands of wanting a war. To imagine, if Bismarck had sent out the original telegraph, the Prussian-Franco war would had never happened, and with that Germany would never have been united; without German unification and later nationalism, World War One and Two may be different or possibly never occur! Thanks to Bismarck's catalyst, Germany was united. Although his slyness is a bit on the dirty side of politics, it totally follows the Machiavellian philosophy. "The ends always justify the means."

Analyzation of Napoleon's decree

"The Plebiscite, Article (ii)" was decreed by Napoleon III during the Second Empire around the 4th of December 1851, Champs Elysee, Paris, France. As it was an official decree of the "emperor", it was meant for all French people to read, but most especially the lower classes, and to inform them of three modified articles regarding their enfranchisement. The first two was to clearly define who could vote and the necessity of proving their eligibility, and the last was to regulate the place, days, and time of voting. It was not only a means to clearly define the voting laws, but also to make it seem that Napoleon was not removing any real power of the public. It was a grand illusion of make-believe that the people had any power and that Napoleon respected their wishes. This was one of his attempts to appease and manipulate the public into thinking as such. Napoleon was forced to declare these laws because the masses of people were educated in philosophical thinkings, and many were socialists who's philosophies and beliefs would have never allowed a dictator (as that is was Napoleon essentially was) to rule. He has just abolished the National Assembly; if he had not allowed some sort of election to some sort of "governing" body, there would have been strong suspicions of his quest for power. To justify his actions, Napoleon said that nothing was effectively being done and that everywhere he turned was another roadblock to helping the people. It was of his opinion that the National Assemblymen were trying to begin a civil war that France did not need; ergo, to prevent such terrible bloodshed and tragedy, he got rid of the instigators. France, still weary of the not forgotten Revolution, welcomed this "saving" and played along with his reasoning. It was a puppet democracy that Louis Napoleon held; it seemed like the people held power, but again, they truly did not. He is precursor to today's authoritarian state politics, in the way people power is mockingly applied, but he aimed to prevent a revolution, unlike many of today's authoritarian leaders who came to power because of their calls FOR revolution.

Analyzation of Mazzini's "The Young Italy Oath"

"The Young Italy Oath" conceived and written by Giuseppe Mazzini was a sworn promise to the movement of a unified Italy. Mazzini, a leader amongst Italian "rebels", wrote this as a means to insure dedication to the cause. It is the 1830's in Italy, the beginnings of a nearly three decade fight for unification. Written for hopeful initiates of the Young Italy brotherhood, it conveys the idea that the Italy they and Mazzini are fighting for is a liberal republican Italy in which everyone has EQUAL rights. It is a piece of historical work that displays nationalism as a growing emotion in nations across Europe, inspiring self-determination of ethnic groups. European nationalism in the early 1800's is defined by pride of country, culture, and language. With Mazzini's writing language, it is easy to see why some have called this new nationalism a "secular religion"; Mazzini's oath is not unlike Roman Catholic laypeople's vows of chastity and obedience to the pope. His oath ends with "NOW AND FOREVER" which stamps the label of semi-fanaticism on many nationalist movements. His liberal views were a bit too optimistic in 1831 because his hope of equality among men did not coincide with the political reality of the time in which there were monarchs, popes, and strong middle class voices.

Analyzation of E. Levasseur's "On Parisian Department Stores"

E. Levasseur's "On Parisian Department stores" is a discussion of an economic phenomenon that has become commonplace in today's society- the department store. Levasseur writes about its roots in Paris, the people who built such stores, the economic planning behind it, and the powerful driving force of the consumer. It was most likely written in the early twentieth century in France for historians as an attempt to understand how the industrial revolutions changed European economies. The main idea behind this essay was that the department stores were a successful business anomaly that also crossed over into the social and culture aspects of history. It cleverly explains how and why this consolidated outpost of buyer and seller does this. Upon closer examination, it is a reflection of the mindset of awed historians at the boom of industry and economy during the late 19th century.
It also addresses the gigantic explosion of mass consumerism. It claims the root of this cataclysm is the department store's mission "to combine all commodities as to attract and satisfy customers who will find conveniently together an assortment of a mass of articles corresponding to all their various needs", and was caused by the constant and rapid outturning of products from industries. It is very easy to connect the need for a place to display and sell this enormous amount of manufactured goods. Their audience was of course, the middle classes, first and foremost because they could afford such luxuries, followed by the wealthy upper classes, and somewhat below was the working classes, all of who's desire to be socially accepted and uppant created the new philosophy of the "haves-and-have-nots". The consumer, mainly of middle class living, followed the trends of in vogue and in season, along with the sales and advertisements. From little tiny shops that specialized in certain things to expansive department stores that contained a variety of products (often with competitive brands), the consumer now had a place to say "I got this at Saks Fifth Avenue" and conjure up the idea that item was expensive and the person could easily afford many of it. It introduced brand-conciousness.

Analyzation of "Homes of the London Poor"

"Homes of the London Poor" was written by Octavia Hill. She was practical, no-nonsense woman who believed that reform should come by using the idea behind "Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. Teach a man how to fish, and you feed him for life." This piece of literature is more like a letter to a business friend or an explanatory essay describing her attempt to reform housing starting on a small, personal level. The time and place is most likely after the 1850's in London, England. The audience could be a business friend or to an editor of a journal or a journalist. It discusses Octavia's venture as tenant owner, land lady, and social observer. Her multi-role to the tenants prove to make an interesting discussion, as Ms. Hill invested a great amount of money to fix up the buildings and put trust into the tenants to help maintain the structure. She began classes and established get-togethers in a common room. Octavia Hill set out to prove that reform could be done without wasting tax dollars and that giving an inch won't sacrifice a mile. By being a more involved landlady, she showed that attitudes and lives change. The significance of this document shows a more grassroots movement to effect change. People, especially women, were taking matters into their own hands and providing the evidence and solutions to address the problems. Octavia Hill wanted to provide dignity and a means for social advancement to the youth of London's poor families. In my belief, she was mostly successful. She was able to set up classes for the children of her tenants and in her opinion (which may or may not be reliable) she was able to offer up some way to give "prestige and honor" to the families by personally inviting them to events. Although she and many other philanthropists of the time were more about going and making a direct difference, not many of today's philanthropists can say the same. I believe there are many reasons behind this, and perhaps one of the man ones is the fact that many philanthropic foundations are set up to cover a whole spectrum of "charitable" causes. Besides, many philanthropists just divy out the direct social work to others.